Freedom of speak what you what

Originally posted by RSMA1234
So what....does he still not have the freedom of speech ?

This is excally what I mean by an illusion, its ok to say something if the "powers that be" agree with it, but when they don't then its a different case

The right to free speech is not absolute because people also have the right not to be harmed as a consquence of your "speech".

So if you want the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you may be infringing on my right not to get trampled. You also infringed on my right to "pursue happiness" by watching a film, by the way.

Basically, you can say what you want as long as you what you say doesn't get other people hurt. The notion the principal objected to was that his school endorsed illegal drug use -- he viewed that as a potentially harmful message for his students.

Where this goes too far is like asserting that "hate speech" is harmful. It may not be especially pleasant, but after high school, a lot of these dictums should drop away.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6238672.stm

I have always thought that Freedom of speech is an illusion, why should a student lose his rights when entering a school

This is a horrible ruling by the supreme court.

It paves the way for schools and government to block speech supporting all manner of things that they think are "bad" for us. It indeed makes free speech more illusion than reality.

It's no accident that both the liberal ACLU and the conservative/christian ACLJ supported the student on this case. As the article points out, this kind of ruling leads to stifling speech on other controversial positions, like abortion and homosexuality.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The right to free speech is not absolute because people also have the right not to be harmed as a consquence of your "speech".

So if you want the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you may be infringing on my right not to get trampled. You also infringed on my right to "pursue happiness" by watching a film, by the way.

Basically, you can ...[text shortened]... be especially pleasant, but after high school, a lot of these dictums should drop away.

Free speech IS absolute, but comes with consequences because people offended are free to break your nose.

Anyone is free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
The fact that the act may have dire consequences does not mean you can't do it anyway.

Basically, you can say what you want .. period. Even if it does get people hurt, you can say what you want.

We are the only ones who limit our own free speech IMO.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The notion the principal objected to was that his school endorsed illegal drug use -- he viewed that as a potentially harmful message for his students.

And why is his the only valid opinion?

Why should anyone think that the whole school endorses drug use just because one student does?

In some schools, they're taking the junk food out of vending machines and replacing it with 'healthy alternatives'. What's next, a kid suspended for toting a sign that says "Jesus loves Doritos"? After all, we'd hate to think the school endorses a policy that leads to obesity. 🙄🙄

Originally posted by SwissGambit
This is a horrible ruling by the supreme court.

It paves the way for schools and government to block speech supporting all manner of things that they think are "bad" for us. It indeed makes free speech more illusion than reality.

It's no accident that both the liberal ACLU and the conservative/christian ACLJ supported the student on this case. As t ...[text shortened]... g leads to stifling speech on other controversial positions, like abortion and homosexuality.

SOOO... The ACLU is against "under God" but for bong hits for Jesus...

That says it all...🙄

Originally posted by torch71
SOOO... The ACLU is against "under God" but for bong hits for Jesus...

That says it all...🙄

Yes, it says that you have oversimplified their position on things.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Fair enough, but freedom of speech is an illusion

I thought that the law of the land always takes precedent over school rules ?

I know bascially he is being a "nob", but all I'm trying to point out to all the users that "bark" on about freedom of speech is that it does not exist or if it does its within limits

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress did not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. That is how the "freedom" is written into the U.S. Constitution. It does not say everyone or anyone has "freedom of speech."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And why is his the only valid opinion?

Why should anyone think that the whole school endorses drug use just because one student does?

In some schools, they're taking the junk food out of vending machines and replacing it with 'healthy alternatives'. What's next, a kid suspended for toting a sign that says "Jesus loves Doritos"? After all, we'd hate to think the school endorses a policy that leads to obesity. 🙄🙄

It the principal permits the sign, one or two irrate parents will accuse him of supporting drugs (instead of supporting free speech). It's kind of a no-win situation for the principal, actually.

But I agree the line is almost impossible to define. And the vote was far from unanimous -- 5 to 4.

Originally posted by spruce112358
It the principal permits the sign, one or two irrate parents will accuse him of supporting drugs (instead of supporting free speech). It's kind of a no-win situation for the principal, actually.

But I agree the line is almost impossible to define. And the vote was far from unanimous -- 5 to 4.

Not allowing people to advocate illegal activities in a place that you're responsible for is completely reasonable.

Originally posted by jammer
Free speech IS absolute, but comes with consequences because people offended are free to break your nose.

Anyone is free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
The fact that the act may have dire consequences does not mean you can't do it anyway.

Basically, you can say what you want .. period. Even if it does get people hurt, you can say what you want.

We are the only ones who limit our own free speech IMO.

Freedom of speech IS absolute. However, with freedom comes responsibility. Yelling fire in a growded theater is illegal, unless there Is a fire. Your freedom of speech cannot cause harm to others. As far as Under aged students are concerned, they do not have certain rights because they are still considered juveniles. They cannot vote yet, they cannot drink alcohol, they cannot enter into a contract etc. The FEDERAL GOV"T cannot infringe on freedom of speech, but i can kick you out of my hoiuse if i don't like what your saying. We are losing our freedoms because of people who are not responsible.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
If a freedom is in a limit, then can it truly be classed as fredom ?

Yes.

Originally posted by smw6869
Freedom of speech IS absolute. However, with freedom comes responsibility. Yelling fire in a growded theater is illegal, unless there Is a fire. Your freedom of speech cannot cause harm to others. As far as Under aged students are concerned, they do not have certain rights because they are still considered juveniles. They cannot vote yet, they cannot drink a ...[text shortened]... t like what your saying. We are losing our freedoms because of people who are not responsible.

That last sentence raises a good point. Individual liberty is the flower that cannot exist without the bee of individual responsibility.

Originally posted by Merk
Not allowing people to advocate illegal activities in a place that you're responsible for is completely reasonable.

Yes, because there have never been any unjust laws, nor change in laws. The law is a static, perfect moral code that must never be questioned.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, because there have never been any unjust laws, nor change in laws. The law is a static, perfect moral code that must never be questioned.

Why be such a combative donkey?

Nobody said all laws are great, nor did I imply it.

If you don't think that its reasonable for the executive of a facility to protect that facility from liability, you need to get out into the real world a little more.

Originally posted by jammer
Free speech IS absolute, but comes with consequences because people offended are free to break your nose.

Anyone is free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
The fact that the act may have dire consequences does not mean you can't do it anyway.

Basically, you can say what you want .. period. Even if it does get people hurt, you can say what you want.

We are the only ones who limit our own free speech IMO.

I haven't read all the posts so maybe this has been covered already, but should David Irving's theories about the Holocaust and the cartoons of Muuuhhhammmmad be classified as hate speech or was their censorship an attack on freedom?

IMO, it was dead wrong to have imprisoned Irving merely for publishing a theory that ran counter to popular acceptance and it was wrong to have given in to Islamic extremist "outrage" after publication of the cartoons of some long dead prophet of questionable merit.

Otherwise, where is the line to be drawn? Who decides and how? What's next in the firing line? Criticism of politicians?? Criticism of anyone and anything? Should every form of negative criticism be considered "hate speech"???

I believe anything and everything is fair game provided you can back up your claims and don't mind being challenged yourself if someone takes umbrage at your criticism. This should go for any and every religion, belief and theory regardless of who is offended by it.